About your Search

20130211
20130219
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
as predi predictable as the speech itself. aaron david miller, you know, there was no foreign policy this week, and he called mr. obama the extricater in chief, a praise i rather liked, but other than that, i really found the commentary westbound quite dreary about a quite uninspiring and effective speech. >> the point is most liberal like these things. there's nothing in this particularly liberal. and it's gotten to the point that if you're a liberal you have to like every idea that barack obama has. and since 1980, i don't understand, like, why are-- the economy is turning around now and he wants to talk about raising the minimum wage? i mean, it just isn't-- this is not an inspiring reaction to what's going on. >> jon: cal. >> i wrote in a column this week, a higher authority to. and the president, the recycling old ideas. the guys are so deep in the tank with this guy if he came up they'd suffer from the bends. he didn't call the president a liar, but came close to it said all of his claims were fantastic. he mentioned head start. he wants pre-k, 3 to 4, and head start has been s
. "state of the union" address tonight and foreign policy will not be the focus of the "state of the union" address, probably, but it will come up. tonight the president is dealing with the first major foreign policy crisis of the second term. north korea has conducted a third nuclear test. with the apparent goal of obtaining a warhead that could threaten the u.s. chief washington correspondent james rosen at the state department on today's test. >> the test was conducted in a safe and perfect way, on a high level with the use of a smaller and light a-bomb, unlike priest ones, yet with great explosion i power. all that and the alarming claim of min neurodevice that couldn't confirmed appeared to be true. in an emergency morning session, the-up security council went through what the u.n. ambassador susan rice called the usual drill. >> we and others have a number of further measures we will be discussing with the council members in various spheres that will not only tighten the existing measures but we aim to augment the sanctions regime that is quite strong, as implemented in 1874 and 208
to do it. on foreign policy, america is indispensable to liberty. and the world is a better place when america is the strongest nation on earth, but we can't remain powerful if we don't have an economy that can afford it. in the storm tihort time i've bn washington nothing frustrates me more than what the president laid out tonight. the choices aren't just big government and big business we need an accountable and efficient big government that allows small and new businesses to create middle class jobs, we don't have to raise taxes to avoid the devastating cuts to the military. republicans passed a plan that replaces these cuts with responsible spending reforms, and in order to balance our budget, the choice doesn't have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need. instead we should grow our economy so we can create new taxpayers, not new taxes. and so, our government can afford to help those truly cannot help themselves. and the truth is, every problem can't be solved by the government. many are caused by the moral breakdown in our society. and the answer to t
is to the left of the obama administration's foreign policy agenda. was on the fringe of the senate. you are talking about a person whose voting record shows softness on iran and and antagonism on israel beyond belief. the fact that they wanted to cloture vote thursday was unreasonable. we voted senator kerry out in the same day because there was no don't veronica moser i have. controversy. we offered to hold the vote until after the break. that wasn't good enough. they wanted to force this issue. so i'm glad that we have got more time to look and i'm glad he answered my question about a very disturbing comment he allegedly made. so i think we doing our job to scrutinize i think one of the most unqualified radical choices for secretary of defense in a very long time. >> chris: well, let me ask you a question about that. if he is so radical and unqualified if you get the information you are seeking on him and on benghazi and we will get to that in a moment, why wouldn't you still continue to try to block him? >> well, because i do believe the president has great deference. can we do bette
talk about foreign policy, it's a direct impact on the department of defense and these are exact questions we should be asking. >> heather: and this is not unprecedented. there are two other times that a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes and both of those bush nominees facing harry reid and democrats and environmental agency head. both had to meet 60 vote threshold. now it has happened to hagel. the third time in ten years. so it's not unprecedented. my question to you, why rush it? >> because the department of defense is responsible for our military. we are currently in conflict right now. i think this is something that has to deal with national security. you really need to get serious and get to work here. we can't be talking about things that are not relevant. they are asking for information about benghazi and chuck hagel had nothing to do with benghazi. if you wanted questions about that you need to talk on other people. >> heather: they got one of those questions answered, that is whether or not president obama himself personally called libyan officials on the night of septe
of the union address here in washington, this is the first foreign policy crisis of his second term. state department officials say the u.s. and its allies in the far east have been spending the last year telling north korean dictator that pyongyang can enjoy better relations in the world if they abandon that you are michael program. the message is stern. >> to address the situation posed by north korea's threatening activity, u.n. security council will deliver a swift and strong response by way of the security council resolution. >> reporter: at around 10:00 last night, u.s. geological survey recorded a seismic event that was twice the magnitude of the second test back in 2009. they say this time is different because it appears not to be an experiment but the test of an operational nuclear bomb. >> it appears this is uranium weapon that has been totally weaponized and capable to be made into a delivery system. a threat that may have bone a decade off before the test, it now appears to be three to five years off with this new breakthrough by the north koreans. >> you heard the general scal
were skeptical to the approach of foreign policy but chuck hagel and bill cohen were could not be further apart and the administration miscalculated. >> i don't think they did their homework. they didn't check out the fact he's not well-liked. personally not well-liked. i talked to senator imhoff who has issues with his policy on israel and iran. mccain said he may vote against him but thought he might pass. then lindsay graham. those are strong conservative republicans and they're not buying it. let me tell you one thing, at the end of the day, if what the republicans want is an ineffective secretary of defense, why? they're not going to agree with obama's policies. ettes far better to have a weak secretary of defense than a strong one who shoves the president's policies down. >> neil: that might be the choice we're left with. kt, always good seeing you. >> thanks, neil. >> from gold to gone, a a meddle winner charged with murdering his girlfriend. ma anyone gunshot. "make seone y >> ma mendez and the media. we question, you decide. one som♪ ♪and you will be happy too.
military. true libertarian would say protect the borders don't have any foreign policy at all. that is tough to win anytime soon. i'm evolving on something. i've listened to what is important. making the bigger tent. making sure the republican party says, you know, more people -- >> bob: are you coming out for prostitution? >> eric: no. i'm coming out for chris christie. i'm back on chris christie again. >> dana: what? >> eric: we need someone with personality. >> greg: we said big tent. not big pants. >> eric: i like that he says what is on his mind and don't worry about the issues that may be a problem to carson and maybe rand paul. >> bob: i think he would be a stronger candidate than rubio. certainly a general election. >> greg: i want to get dana in this. do you have anything intelligent to add to this? >> dana: people reject calling themselveses a republican. they don't want to call themselves democrat or say conservative or liberal. there are appealing characteristics with a libertarian to speak to people how they feel about themselves so people take another look at it.
. >> i don't know. >> when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. were you correct or incorrect, yes or no? >> my reference to the-- >> can you answer the question, senator hagel? the question is were you right or wrong that's a pretty straight forward question, i'd like the answer whether you're right or wrong and they are you're free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. >> what do you think that the iranian foreign ministry so strongly supports your nomination to be secretary of defense? defense? >> i have a difficult enough time with american politics and senator, i have no idea. >> do you think it's appropriate for the chief civilian leader of the u.s. military forces to agree with the statement that both the perception, quote, and the reality is that the united states is, quote, the world's bully? >> i didn't hear her say that, by the way, united states and i think my comment was it's irrelevant in good observation. i don't think i said that i agree. >> sean: jay sekulow, your reaction? >>
, but imagine this, the foreign policy of libertarian minded conservative republicans like rand paul has more in common with chuck hagel than it does with john mccain. they are opposed to intervention. they're in favor of cutting defense budgets as part of an overrecall reduction in government spending. so libertarians like the idea of chuck hagel, who wants to be part of cuts and who wants to be less interventionist. remember, libertarians want to bring the troops home just as much as many liberals used to when george w. bush was president. so it's complicated for rand paul. he says he's fighting hagel on these principle grounds as it relates to benghazi, as it relates to the disclosure of documents and other things. but if libertarians had their way, they would prefer him to the guy who was just in there, leon panetta. >> rand paul is an intriguing character, if for no other reason than he always maintainses a very, very calm demeanor, but fires some heavy broadsides at the same time, one of which he fired at secretary of state hillary clinton during the benghazi hearing. let's take listen
administration. it was very nice of him to bring up foreign policy, because in fact he has not been transparent at all about his drone war or his kill list or any of the other things that have to be leaked for us to find out about. we still don't know what he was doing the night of the attack in benghazi. not just the night of the attack in benghazi but also the night on the attack on the cairo embassy and other embassies in the middle east. if he is transparent, you know, this is sort of basic information that he should provide. >> bret: so you agree that for these senators to say hey, we need this information, it's okay for them to hold up even national security cabinet position for some time to get it. >> the president should be given extreme deference in appointing his members of his cabinet. the way john bolton was treated was terrible. i said that at the time. i think there has to be a real reason. in this situation, i think he will be confirmed but it is sad that lindsey graham has the hold up a nomination to find out where the president was the night of the terrorist attack. i mean some
the president's foreign policy priorities ought to be, looking at response to the turmoil of the arab spring, dealing with russia wouldn't seem to be anyone's natural first priority right now. jenna: one of the arguments, though, for doing this, according to "the new york times," is it would save a lot of money. if we don't have to keep these nuclear weapons and store them and watch them, that's going to save us a lot of cash, and we know the type of financial situation we're in right now. why isn't that a good argument? >> one, everyone would like to save cash, but really we've had $5 trillion added to our national debt over recent years, and maintenance of our nuclear strategic capability contributed nothing to that. and the proposed cuts, they say, would reduce about $120 billion in spending over 20 years, which is really a drop in the wasn't compared -- bucket compared to approaching $20 trillion in national debt. the second is the cut into intellectual capabilities well that should be stimulating economic development, research and development and applied technology. hitting these areas,
business is our business. adt. always there. jenna: welcome back, everyone. it's a foreign policy flashback if you will with new concerns today over iran and north korea, two countries singled out by president george w. bush nor than a decade ago during his state of the union address. remember this? >> north korea has a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction while starving its citizens. iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror while an unelected few reexpress the iranian's people's' hope for freedom. iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward america and support terror. states like these and these terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world. jenna: well two charter members of the axis of evil iran and north korea both in the spotlight at this year's state of the union. take a listen. >> our challenges don't end with al-qaida. america will continue to lead the effort to prevent the spread of the world's most dangerous weapons. the regime in north korea must know they will only achieve security and prosperity
of the israeli foreign ministry and that he thinks israel has an undue influence on the foreign policy. hagel said i never said and i do i want believe it we'll see. to graham is that enough. he said let's make sure it is true. if it turned out it is not true and he could be in serious trouble and they want more information. if i had to beat, i beat more chance than not he will get through. but in the panel, we talked to bob woodword and he said some democratics are uneasy with the hagel nomination and in this week, he compared to water gate twist negligent wind that maybe democratics may go to the white house and pressure them to drop hagel, we'll see. >> there are two tracts, objection toz hagel himself and record in the past and using it as leverage to git more've - get more information about bengazi. you think bengazi is it answered it would help approximate hagel to sail through or the delay in time will bring up more time to dig up more things about him? >> state your namely some people who oppose hagel and try to dig up more information on him. failing that even if they don't get the a
president faces a foreign policy crisis. do you want this man, senator barack obama answering that phone call at 3:00 a.m.? well, it turns out, suddenly a relevant question. >> suddenly a relevant question because on the afternoon of september 11th, 2012, of course the day of the benghazi attacks that unfolded, there was some question now at least being raised by republican congressman louie gohmert as to why -- how responsive was the president during this entire time? well, we know in the afternoon he did speak with his. >> leon panetta and general demps is i. >> 5:00 p.m. in the afternoon. louie gohmert raising this point 3:00 a.m. and whether or not he was able to sleep through all of these unfolding problems in benghazi, listen. >> president required a sleep aid that night but if he did, anybody else in america has trouble sleeping, you better get what he had because it works well. how the president of the united states could sleep that night as the ambassador that he put in place, that he put in harm's way was under attack or he had been kidnapped. being brutalized unspeakable thing
the american foreign policy was conducted in the middle east and i don't think they indicate some kind of unsuitability to be secretary of defense. i think he would have been is wiser to state it as he did on other occasions saying he could have good relations with israel and at the same time good relations with other countries but stay true and look out for america's interests first. >> reporter: ajyan blogged about the comments at the time but despite he supports hagel's nomination. bill: what is the reaction we're getting on capitol hill? >> reporter: senator lindsey graham opposes hagel's nomination. he heard about the comments and wrote a letter to hagel on "fox news sunday" yesterday. hagel responded but he does not remember making the remarks but he now disavows them. gram has concerns about that and other comments. >> if the second statement were true he said that the secretary of state's office under the control of israeli foreign ministers. those two together would show an edge and view of the israeli-u.s. relationship way out of the mainstream. >> reporter: graham said he wi
third nuclear test overnight. the therapy of the house foreign affairs committee just weighed in. he says the obama administration must replace its failed north korean policy with one that is energetic, creative and focused on crippling the kim regime's military capabilities through stringent sanctions. senior foreign affairs correspondent greg palkot has the late nest london. you moved from the pope's story to this world crisis now, greg. >> yeah, crazy week. the world, in fact, got a bit more dangerous overnight. u.n. officials, i was speaking to a few minutes ago, confirmed to me that they believe the north korea has tested yet another nuclear device. but most importantly, they tell me this device is twice as powerful as the one they detonated in 2009. they base that on seismic measurements they're taking from the test site. north korea today claiming they have tested a smaller, more sophisticated device, which means, according to my contacts in north korea and korea that i've been speaking to, this could be better put on top of a missile. remember, in december, north korea had th
the jewish lobby, saying the iranian regime is legitimate, talking about sanctions, saying that the policy is containment when it's not, it's prevention. in rutgers, he apparently had a statement that claimed he accused the state department of doing the ordering and the bidding of the israeli foreign ministry. because you have this delay, could more come out? could this snowball within the next week and a half that he could be pulled? >> well, i don't know about you, eric, but i rarely seen a cabinet secretary, cabinet appointee under the microscope the way this guy has. and i hope you'll pardon me, but short of finding out that he had improper relations with somebody under the age of 16 or so, i think everybody knows what's out there. people have made up their minds. you saw it in the votes. and i do think he will be confirmed. it's just, i don't know. i understand john mccain making a point. he also said that chuck hagel was friend of his and i thought, boy, with friends like that. but i think if you're outside of washington, you have to say, what are these guys and girls doing? we're go
on capitol hill blasting the obama administration, the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, republican ed royce, is calling on the administration to replace what he calls a failed north korea policy. chief white house or correspondent ed henry is live on the north lawn. ed, do we expect the president to mention this north korea mess in his state of the union speech tonight? and if so, if i may, how does it fit into his agenda? >> reporter: sure, arthel. bottom line is the president's aides say he is likely to mention this essentially failed test by the north koreans tonight. they are deeply concerned here at the white house, though, that know keeps doing these tests. as you say, the president put out a written statement calling this provocative, and they're basically saying, though, in the end it didn't really work, is so they don't think north korea is as far along in their nuclear program as certainly north korea hopes. nonetheless, we think the president will mention it, not dwell on it tonight. instead, he wants to talk about the economy and jobs according to top aides.
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)